Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
1. The current atmospheric content of CO2 at .036% produces a 54F to 44F degree increase in the average global temperature. Pretty amazing, isn't it?
You mean .036% versus 0% raises the avg global temp 44-54F? I highly doubt that. If that were the correlation between greenhouse gases and global warming then temperatures would have gone up way more if the greenhouse gases have increased so dramatically.
Waaaaah, gigatons, gigatons, waaaaah. There is no data that conclusively proves humans are causing significant GW through gas emissions. This has been stated many times and it doesn't change despite your repeated bleating.
Quote:
2. 1F degree increase is not very much, but what about a 4F or 5F degree increase? Does that get your attention?
Well, gee, a 50F swing would get my attention but there's no data to support it.
Quote:
3. Who says more rain for the Sparta Aquifer? Maybe Drought City will be teh new kid on the block.
More vapor = more rain. Maybe? Maybe? So these dire consequences of our actions are uncertain?
Quote:
4. If plants could absorb the incresed amounts of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, then why is the level of CO2 gone from 263 ppm to 380 PPM?
I didn't say plants could absorb it I was talking about how your biomass absorbing more CO2 statement was irrelevant.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken_Horndawgs
You mean .036% versus 0% raises the avg global temp 44-54F? I highly doubt that. If that were the correlation between greenhouse gases and global warming then temperatures would have gone up way more if the greenhouse gases have increased so dramatically.
To be fair to Salty, Ken, I should add that a low overall density of material with favorable scattering properties can result in significant total scattering of radiation. For example, the concentration of colloids (mostly fat-based) in milk is pretty small on a volumetric basis, but that low concentration is sufficient to completely scatter light.
But, this is not a scattering phenomena, it is an absorption phenomena. And absorption (assuming only one material is present) is directly proportional to the number of like molecules present, within certain limits.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
9701Dawg
Thanks for the response.
If most temperature sensors are in cities, are the measurements taken in cities flawed due to the "urban heat island effect"? The urban heat island effect can cause a deviation of in temperature readings because urban air can be 2-6 degrees C hotter than the surrounding rural areas. Is this effect factored into a global average temperature calculation that includes city temps?
Yes, the urban heat island effect is a very significant factor. I really don't know how many of the various GW averaging techniques try to account for this. And there are numerous techniques to try to account for this. In the petroleum insustry ( as well as in the mining industry) accounting for this "nugget effect" is one of the more daunting tasks facing engineers and geologists. The best tools for handling this are based in modern geostatistical methods such as Kriging. But even using these techniques you can get widely varying answers with just a slight tweaking of input control parameters. But it does give the best chance of properly accounting for the nuget effect.
I would like to think that these techniques were being used -- and I can't say they're not --
but of several IPCC modelers I have had discussions with, none even knew what I was talking about. My guess is that they do try to account for this but probably with some simple point weighting technique, which can really lead you off course. But then if it gives you the answer they really want I guess they're happy with it.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Pup60
Yes, the urban heat island effect is a very significant factor. I really don't know how many of the various GW averaging techniques try to account for this. And there are numerous techniques to try to account for this. In the petroleum insustry ( as well as in the mining industry) accounting for this "nugget effect" is one of the more daunting tasks facing engineers and geologists. The best tools for handling this are based in modern geostatistical methods such as Kriging. But even using these techniques you can get widely varying answers with just a slight tweaking of input control parameters. But it does give the best chance of properly accounting for the nuget effect.
I would like to think that these techniques were being used -- and I can't say they're not --
but of several IPCC modelers I have had discussions with, none even knew what I was talking about. My guess is that they do try to account for this but probably with some simple point weighting technique, which can really lead you off course. But then if it gives you the answer they really want I guess they're happy with it.
The bottom line is that average global temperature is going up and you can see that in the retreat and disappearance of the glaciers.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
9701Dawg
What's the average global temperature?
The weather service takes temperatures around the world surfaces and oceans and averages them all out for the year or month. At least that is my understanding.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken_Horndawgs
You mean .036% versus 0% raises the avg global temp 44-54F? I highly doubt that. If that were the correlation between greenhouse gases and global warming then temperatures would have gone up way more if the greenhouse gases have increased so dramatically.
Waaaaah, gigatons, gigatons, waaaaah. There is no data that conclusively proves humans are causing significant GW through gas emissions. This has been stated many times and it doesn't change despite your repeated bleating.
Well, gee, a 50F swing would get my attention but there's no data to support it.
More vapor = more rain. Maybe? Maybe? So these dire consequences of our actions are uncertain?
I didn't say plants could absorb it I was talking about how your biomass absorbing more CO2 statement was irrelevant.
I give up. The average global temperature is goin' up because of all the hot air from Rush and Fox "News".
Why don't you buy a textbook on AGW and read it.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
I give up. The average global temperature is goin' up because of all the hot air from Rush and Fox "News".
Why don't you buy a textbook on AGW and read it.
There is no definitive book on AGW because the highly disputed assertions are just that, instead of facts. If this were pure fact then this whole debate wouldn't be raging.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
The bottom line is that average global temperature is going up and you can see that in the retreat and disappearance of the glaciers.
That isn't the main argument. A slight increase in global temperature has unknown effects, may or may not be caused by humans, and may or may not have been more extreme in the past.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
randerizer
To be fair to Salty, Ken, I should add that a low overall density of material with favorable scattering properties can result in significant total scattering of radiation. For example, the concentration of colloids (mostly fat-based) in milk is pretty small on a volumetric basis, but that low concentration is sufficient to completely scatter light.
But, this is not a scattering phenomena, it is an absorption phenomena. And absorption (assuming only one material is present) is directly proportional to the number of like molecules present, within certain limits.
randerizer, you're a scientist so you should be able to figger out what the average global temperature would be if all CO2 were remove from the atmosphere. In fact, it should be a piece of cake for you.
What is required is that the total energy radiated by the Earth plus the atmosphere should remain the same.
Once you have that figger out, we can figger in what impact the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere would have on the other GHGs,
Good luck! (But you really don't need it because this is really elementary science.)
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken_Horndawgs
There is no definitive book on AGW because the highly disputed assertions are just that, instead of facts. If this were pure fact then this whole debate wouldn't be raging.
Wrong. There are several college level textbooks on AGW. If you weren't attending LA Tech you would probably know that.:D
Re: Global Warming Cont...
I don't know if this was posted on this thread yet but I'm not going to read 100 pages so..
The Great Global Warming Swindle (1hr +)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arming+swindle
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
randerizer, you're a scientist so you should be able to figger out what the average global temperature would be if all CO2 were remove from the atmosphere. In fact, it should be a piece of cake for you.
What is required is that the total energy radiated by the Earth plus the atmosphere should remain the same.
Once you have that figger out, we can figger in what impact the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere would have on the other GHGs,
Good luck! (But you really don't need it because this is really elementary science.)
well, it depends on more than that if you want better than a simple approximation. You would at least have to take into account some of the energy input from the sun, the ability of the surface of the earth and the oceans to absorb energy (wavelength dependent), etc... I'd also need to know something about the curvature of the earth and atmosphere, etc.). I'm just not interested in solving that problem at the moment.
But I would not use the approximation that radiation in = radiation out. energy is absorbed by the earth itself.
And, this would assume that I have some suitable way to average temperatures. I'd suspect that nighttime temperatures would be changed to a greater extent than daytime temperatures. It's not beyond reason for me to think that daytime temperatures might actually INCREASE without GHGs. There is no doubt that it would be colder at night. But how do those balance into an average temperature for a single location, not to mention globally?
Copying my avatar again, Salty?
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
The weather service takes temperatures around the world surfaces and oceans and averages them all out for the year or month. At least that is my understanding.
That statement just shows how little you know and/or understand about the complexities of "averaging", Salty!!!!!
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
saltydawg
Wrong. There are several college level textbooks on AGW. If you weren't attending LA Tech you would probably know that.:D
Salty, there are a lot of "college level" textbooks out there that are complete BS!!!!! Now as far as AGW, what exactly are those titles and who wrote them???????
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Pup60
That statement just shows how little you know and/or understand about the complexities of "averaging", Salty!!!!!
His AGW textbook has all the info anyone would need to know, right Salty? :icon_wink:
